Europe and US are seeing a dramatic increase of attacks against digital freedom. Those anti-laws violate the freedom from censorship, surveillance, political persecution as well as represent infringements on privacy, free expression, intellectual freedom and sometimes even personal property.
Those laws are blatantly illegal, and because of that they use deceptive language to obfuscate the criminal aspects. There usually is some cynical alibi feature like child protection, scam protection, and so on. Some very unfortunate people involved in these schemes definitely have genuine intend to seek some benefit for society, but it's probably mostly cynical, especially on the political side. All the double-speak crypto politics of these anti-laws make it a strange beast that is hard to describe accurately.
It appears that almost all the motivations for implementing these criminal structures are at present political, moral or ideological. But that will fade away over time, and what's going to remain will become a big digital protection racket, Imho. Mafia type economics seem by far the most likely economic-circuit to reproduce these structures. From a historical perspective there is a recurring theme where certain people unleash things like this and then it gets taken over and repurposed by other people.
I think overcoming all of this will be a long struggle, and in order for that to succeed, we have to take into account how that phenomenon will change over time. There also is uncertainty whether or not this is connected to tech monopoly capital trying to close off the internet.
In the past there were lots of protection rackets in meat-space, those seem to have gone away for the most part, how did that actually happen ?
Can you be a little less vague, OP? Examples?
>>472843>Can you be a little less vague
Sorry for that
France for example is trying to make an anti-law that's requiring Browsers to have a website black-list. The official excuse for that is "combating scams". The real motivations in the present is likely for creating a web-censorship instrument. And in the long term it will likely become a protection racket where websites have to pay protection-money in order to not be classified as a "scam-page". And they might even try to milk users for accessing certain websites as well.
In the US certain states are currently trying out a scheme to force government-ID to access certain pages. The official excuse is that the state should do parental control to prevent minors from accessing porn. While this was ruled unconstitutionally already they somehow fund a loop-hole (something with 3rd party lawsuits). The real motivation in the present is likely to force hard surveillance through ID verification. But ID verification will kill the user-base for a website. In the long term this will become a protection racket where websites have to pay protection money to get exempt from this. And users will likely get milked with identification fees.
King Abdullha N°2 of Jordan has made a McRoyal decree that punishes online wrong-speak with upto 3 month prison. The definition of wrong-speak is super broad and includes "harming national unity" and "contempt for religion", which basically can mean anything they like. The current motivation is punishing dissenting voices. The protection racket scheme for this is particularly bad, everybody who ever posted something online can be subjected to a shakedown of the type: pay-up or go to prison.
France’s browser-based website blocking proposal will set a disastrous precedent for the open internet https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2023/06/26/france-browser-website-blocking/
>France is on the verge of forcing browsers to create a dystopian technical capability. Article 6 (para II and III) of the SREN Bill would force browser providers to create the means to mandatorily block websites present on a government provided list.
Earlier this year there was this shitEU chat control law will ban open source operating systemshttps://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/2/1/eu-chat-control-law-will-ban-open-source-operating-systems/
>The EU is currently in the process of enacting the chat control law. It has been criticized for creating an EU-wide centralized mass surveillance and censorship system and enabling government eavesdropping on all private communication. But one little talked about consequence of the proposed law is that it makes practically all existing open source operating systems illegal, including all major Linux distributions. It would also effectively ban the F-Droid open source Android app archive.
>>472901>the chat control law
Would make the entire internet illegal, it's not possible to comply with this, and it's not possible to enforce it either.
What's the purpose of this, is this just ignorance and incompetence coming from old technology illiterate people or is there method to the madness ? Is this an attempt to break up the European Union by making it incompatible with the internet ?
>>472901>But one little talked about consequence of the proposed law is that it makes practically all existing open source operating systems illegal, including all major Linux distributions.
<Update: Open source OSes might be saved from being covered depending on the interpretation of EU regulation 2019/1150 2.2.c.
<To be considered an online intermediation service it requires a contractual relationship between the service and any businesses using it. The open source licenses regulating the distribution of the software are legal agreements between the copyright holders and the distributors. Even so, a liberal interpretation might consider that not to count based on the nature of the agreements
Hmm there is an update in the article that says it might not apply to linux.
Anybody understand enough legalese to weigh in on this ?
This stuff is incredibly creepy, and I really hate how they coat it in "think of the children" rhetoric.
I dunno , maybe we should co-opt their rhetoric. All the holes they're trying to poke into privacy protecting measures could also be used by predators to attack children.
So how about<Think of the children's privacy
meant for >>472909dammit